obama says the healthcare bill will cut the deficit

[gsvol]

I think you have seriously misunderstood my reply.

The poster, MG1968, said something about the SS "Lockbox" and added some cryptic statement about how the government is somehow lying about it.

I asked a clarifying question, whether he was referring to the "lockbox" created by Reagan in 1983.

He apparently was not; he says he is referring to some magical, nonexistent, invisible lockbox which was created prior.


I'm not "blaming" Reagan for anything. I'm not sure where you're going here?

Then explain the 'lockbox.'

The money taken in has been spent, the real balance in the SS fund is zero.

To me it was like this, one pay cycle my deduction line read 'SS insurance', the next pay cycle it read 'SS tax.'

I don't recall any public discussion of that at the time in the media but I have come to completely despise and distrust the media.

(Maybe you have some text book reference to how a government run business can fail because of blatent fraud and theft.)

It is painfully apparent that some time in the not so distant future that SS will have a negative cash flow, more money going out than coming in.

This will leave us with two alternatives, cut benefits or increase taxes.

In the coming year SS beneficiaries will NOT get any cost of living increases because we are in a recession, recession or not we are in an inflationary situation in the real world, perhaps faced with the possibility of hyperinflation.

Presently the eligibility age to begin to draw back on the monies you have contributed to (which in real life have been stolen already) all your working life has been increased to 66 because of longer average life spans.

This is a bit of statistical deception in that we havn't lost millions of men in their prime in some politically motivated war lately and the fact that 75 years ago 50% of all children died before the age of 5.

I don't know what MG1968 is talking about, I rarely do.

 

[Cartervol]

Campaigning for another term is all this whole thing is about. Just minor details about inflation and bankrupting the country. Obama is pretty much a idiot and that's about all that can be said. If the sheep have health care they'll back him again, no matter how bad everything else is. The guy is spending us into oblivion.

 

[BigPapaVol]

bs. FDR was obama before obama. 100% believed in govt as the solution.

I wasn't serious. FDR started the government is the answer approach in America.

 

[shootermcgavin7]

Then explain the 'lockbox.'

In the early 1980s, SSI changed from a "pay as you go" system (exactly matching inflows with outflows) to setting aside a savings fund by raising SSI taxes (now inflows exceeded outflows). The money was/is invested in special t-bills/bonds. This was done because of the anticipated retirement of the baby boomers in recent years. This bill was passed by a mostly Democratic Congress and signed into law by Reagan.

That is what I assumed the original poster was referring to. That was the clarifying question I was asking. So far, that has been the only reason I posted in the thread, was to try to figure out what "lockbox" he was referring to. I haven't "blamed" or attacked anyone for anything to my knowledge.

The money taken in has been spent, the real balance in the SS fund is zero.

At consolidated level, of course. The government has invested the Social Security surplus into T-Bonds and T-Bills. What does the government do with their bond proceeds? They spend the money. So the surplus has been spent, and has consistently been spent since the 1980s.

I don't recall any public discussion of that at the time in the media but I have come to completely despise and distrust the media.

I believe I posted Reagan's 1983 speech elsewhere in this thread. If I haven't, I'd be happy to re-post it. Social Security "reform" was heavily covered in the early 1980s, although probably not as heavily as the 1986 tax "reform".

 

[gsvol]

I wasn't serious. FDR started the government is the answer approach in America.

And many of FDR's programs were ruled unconstitutional.

FDR used and Obama is using an artificial financial crisis created by the privately owned central bank (federal reserve) to try to create a much stronger central federal government.

In the early 1980s, SSI changed from a "pay as you go" system (exactly matching inflows with outflows) to setting aside a savings fund by raising SSI taxes (now inflows exceeded outflows). The money was/is invested in special t-bills/bonds. This was done because of the anticipated retirement of the baby boomers in recent years. This bill was passed by a mostly Democratic Congress and signed into law by Reagan.

That is what I assumed the original poster was referring to. That was the clarifying question I was asking. So far, that has been the only reason I posted in the thread, was to try to figure out what "lockbox" he was referring to. I haven't "blamed" or attacked anyone for anything to my knowledge.



At consolidated level, of course. The government has invested the Social Security surplus into T-Bonds and T-Bills. What does the government do with their bond proceeds? They spend the money. So the surplus has been spent, and has consistently been spent since the 1980s.




I believe I posted Reagan's 1983 speech elsewhere in this thread. If I haven't, I'd be happy to re-post it. Social Security "reform" was heavily covered in the early 1980s, although probably not as heavily as the 1986 tax "reform".

The first time I ever remember the term 'lockbox' being used was by Al Gore while he was VP.

I think you are way misled about how the SS so-called fund is run.

Changes have been made to the original SS bill all the way back to Truman, always by a dem majority legislature and I thought Eisenhower was the only rep pres to sign one, perhaps Reagan did also, after all he was just a recycled democrat at heart anyway.

In the Reagan speech did he say that SS was going from an insurance program to a tax program??

I'm pretty sure SSI funds collected from the American public were put in the general fund rather than in a seperate fund and then spent on whatever suited the federal government long before Reagan, most likely that happened in response to funding of LBJ's great society.

According to the WSJ SS may colapse as soon as 2010.

Democrats are claiming a ten year funding for Obamacare to be about $900 billion.

They also claim this will save $130 billion.

I doubt either figure would be all that accurate if obamacare is brought into being.

Even if this passes and even if the democrat claims prove to be true, (which would be a first in American history, at least since Andrew Jackson) that is only about a 15% return, or about 1.5% per year.

If you also consider inflation in that equation then you are making an underwater investment up front and in ten years we would be drowning in our own red tape.

 

[paul1454]

I'm not familiar with this bill, but can someone in a nutshell who has read it explain to me how they are planning to bring the costs down?

I would really like to hear what they are planning to do because the only way that happens IMO is some kind of cost controls put in place, which in other words is limitations on health services.

The current bill seeks to reduce costs by combating an economic efficiency in insurance markets called "adverse selection." Essentially, adverse selection is the premium increases built into insurance policies on the notion that more high risk insureds are going to seek insurance. What this does is creates an insurance market where low risk individuals overpay due to this inherent pricing problem. To combat this, the bill is enacting an individual mandate. The reasoning is, that if ALL consumers are required to obtain insurance, there is no reason to have a built in increase to compat the notion that most insureds will be in higher risk groups. Mandatory coverage is the most widely recognized form of combating adverse selection but it not without its problems. Requiring mandatory coverage carries with it a countervailing moral hazard problem - that people overuse things they are required to obtain in an effort to "get their money's worth."

That is all this bill really does to bring down any costs. On the flip-side, it will increase a whole host of other costs by (1) taxing various healthcare markets such as medical devices - a cost that ends up being passed on to the consumer; (2) expanding medicaid to 133% of the poverty line; (3) limits the ability of insurance companies to accurately price insurance based on preexisting conditions - another cost that ends up being passed to everyone else..............and several more but I have run out of time to type. Haha, gotta run.

 

[shootermcgavin7]

The first time I ever remember the term 'lockbox' being used was by Al Gore while he was VP.

I think you are way misled about how the SS so-called fund is run.

Changes have been made to the original SS bill all the way back to Truman, always by a dem majority legislature and I thought Eisenhower was the only rep pres to sign one, perhaps Reagan did also, after all he was just a recycled democrat at heart anyway.

In the Reagan speech did he say that SS was going from an insurance program to a tax program??

I'm pretty sure SSI funds collected from the American public were put in the general fund rather than in a seperate fund and then spent on whatever suited the federal government long before Reagan, most likely that happened in response to funding of LBJ's great society.

According to the WSJ SS may colapse as soon as 2010.

Democrats are claiming a ten year funding for Obamacare to be about $900 billion.

They also claim this will save $130 billion.

I doubt either figure would be all that accurate if obamacare is brought into being.

Even if this passes and even if the democrat claims prove to be true, (which would be a first in American history, at least since Andrew Jackson) that is only about a 15% return, or about 1.5% per year.

If you also consider inflation in that equation then you are making an underwater investment up front and in ten years we would be drowning in our own red tape.

I have read through this three times and am unable to figure out what your point is.

My last post is a pretty accurate description of how the government tried to plan ahead for the baby boomers (way back in 1983) but ended up spending the surplus anyway. I'm not sure what your beef with that is, because it seems like you agree that there's no surplus at the consolidated government level.

Is your problem that Reagan signed off on the "reform"? Please clearly tell me what your problem with my last post is.


See below as well:

Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian's Office

Down around the 1983 Amendment section:

Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the 1983 Amendments...
...The Senate Report thus acknowledged that one motivating factor in introducing this change was to raise revenue for the Trust Funds. This was part of a much larger package of program changes designed to address the financial solvency of the program. One might fairly say that cutting benefits and raising revenues was the purpose of the 1983 Amendments, and the adoption of Social Security benefit taxation was simply one provision among many to facilitate these aims. It is also important to note that funds raised under this provision do not go into the General Fund of the Treasury but into the Social Security Trust Funds. This emphasizes again that the purpose of introducting this provision was to raise revenue to help restore Social Security's financial solvency.


And they invested the excess inflows in government securities.

 

[volinbham]

So much for being deficit neutral. Double counting Medicare savings...turns out you can't use the savings to extend the solvency of Medicare and ALSO use those same savings to pay for new programs. Of course this is all moot since we know the Medicare savings aren't real to begin with so they are double counting vapor savings.

FOXNews.com - Senators Cite New Budget Letter to Argue Health Care Bill Will Hike Deficit

Can't wait to see the spin on this one.

 

[rockydoc]

by $132 billion.

:lolabove:

Biggest liar in american history?

This statement will go down in history like Bush's "Mission Accomplished".

Hold on to your wallets, middle class, you're about to be hosed!